Rochester University: A Distinctive Christian University – In Its Heritage and Its Future

Brian L. Stogner, Ph.D.
Rochester University
President

 

INTRODUCTION

Rochester University (RU) is now well into its seventh decade of existence, and though it has faced daunting challenges throughout that time, perhaps never in its history has the university formerly known as North Central Christian College, Michigan Christian College, and Rochester College faced a sociocultural milieu that is more demanding of innovation and imagination. The 21st century has been marked by sweeping social and cultural conflicts, and a populace polarized along political, ethnic, economic, and generational lines. Accompanying this social upheaval is a demographic shift in the northeastern and midwestern United States, resulting in a sharpening reduction in the number of students prospectively bound for college, and especially a Christian college.  

Biologists suggest that a hallmark and a distinctive of human beings is our extreme adaptability. Homo sapiens can function effectively and even thrive in a broader range of situations, climates, circumstances, and stresses than perhaps any other species. Though we might not always enjoy it, humans are exceptionally good at responding to novel situations and adapting to change. However, many of those same biologists would now suggest that the rapid and ubiquitous changes in our current environment are taxing even our considerable adaptive capabilities. We are in what those scientists sometimes call a “hypernovel” environment. Though the environment is difficult, Rochester University stands in a unique place to face its challenges, in significant measure due to its heritage. Since 1959, RU has made numerous changes and adaptations, often reflected but not fully captured by its name changes.

One key adaptation in the life of Rochester University has been its evolution into a more religiously inclusive institution. As the essays in this series have discussed, RU was founded by members of the Church of Christ, and for most of its history all of those who led the institution, including administrators, full-time faculty, key staff members, trustees, and primary financial supporters were from that religious group. Students from the Church of Christ were the primary prospects for admissions counselors. However, as the institution developed to face a changing world, it became an organization less exclusively led by, taught by, and attended by individuals from the Church of Christ and, across the spectrum from trustees to students, became more religiously diverse within the context of the broader Christian community. These moves were not only adaptive but were entirely consistent with the values and principles at the core of the Stone-Campbell Movement from which the institution sprang.

As the essays in this series also elaborate upon, the Stone-Campbell Movement conceptualized and proclaimed an arguably noble attempt to accomplish both unity and “restoration” of the church. Though clearly neither of those ideals has been realized, the best elements of that heritage still provide a helpful set of guiding principles for us today. The objective of this essay is to sketch out a framework for how RU can move forward, mindfully rooted in and honoring its heritage, while also responding to the current realities in the world that might require a Christian university to stretch, adapt, and grow beyond its heritage. Such a framework should also more directly and comprehensively answer the question, “Who is Rochester University today?” 

In response to that question, a fundamental aspiration of RU is to honor and recognize our heritage while becoming a distinctive Christian university. “Distinctive” has become an overused word among colleges and universities. (One of the great ironies in higher education is that everyone is trying to be unique in essentially the same ways.) In that context, to be truly distinctive in the ways that are important would mean for RU to be:

• Nonsectarian and interdenominational.
• Rooted in a history and heritage that informs and guides us.
• Engaging constructively with the diverse and rapidly changing perspectives in a post-denominational and in many ways post-Christian culture.
• Firmly rooted in the commitment that Jesus is Lord and guided by the Truth of the gospel story.

 

THE OPEN TABLE – A GUIDING PRINCIPLE

A foundational priority of the Stone-Campbell Movement was the centrality of the Lord’s Supper in Christian assemblies and insistence upon this observance as an “open table,” at which all who would partake are welcome. The Stone-Campbell pioneers saw restricted observance of the Lord’s Supper as a reflection of the sectarianism to which their movement was opposed. There is an oft-repeated story of a critical moment in the life of Alexander Campbell when, in a scene worthy of cinema, he cast into the pewter plate containing the Lord Supper’s emblems a token he had been given certifying his worthiness to partake in the sacrament, signifying his recognition that all are invited to experience the radical and welcoming hospitality of the table of the Lord. As one biographer of Campbell dramatically put it, “The ring of that token, as it fell from his hands, like the ring of Martin Luther’s hammer on the door of the Wittenberg cathedral, announced the renunciation of the old church ties, and marks the moment of which he forever ceased to recognize the claims or authority of a human creed to bind upon men the conditions of their acceptance with God.”

Interestingly, at least one other university emerging from the Stone-Campbell tradition (Pepperdine) has pointed to the significance of the theologically and socially profound notion of the Lord’s Supper as an open table as a grounding and guiding principle, though Pepperdine’s application of this principle differs somewhat from that of RU. Because Jesus is the host, his hospitality is open to all who are willing to come. Consistent with that heritage principle, Rochester University’s commitment is to strive to exemplify the spirit of that open table. RU exists to provide “a rigorous and holistic education” that prepares students for personal and professional success as they serve and participate in God’s mission in the world. Such an objective entails with it (among other things) a relentless pursuit of truth (which makes the epistemic presumption that such a thing as truth both exists and is discoverable,) and devotion to practices of discernment that engage, involve, and respect the voices and perspectives of the entire community. So, anyone of any stripe who is willing to sit at this metaphorical table with the RU community is to be extended the hospitality and welcome of the Table of the Lord, as together we pursue truth, a rigorous and holistic education, and participation in God’s mission in the world.

That principle also creates a foundation at RU for an emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion. In fact, if the radical hospitality of Jesus is our guide, then diversity, equity, inclusion, (and justice) must not be only slogans or even programmatic efforts. They must be among the core principles upon which the institution is based. Thus, RU will be welcoming and inclusive of all believers and unbelievers, all races and ethnicities, all political persuasions, all socioeconomic statuses, all orientations, and citizens of every nation, an assertion that will be elaborated upon below. If Rochester University truly emulates Jesus’s model of hospitality, welcome, and inclusion, it will inevitably encounter others (and already has encountered them) who embrace a life narrative that is different from the Christian story. That difference will produce deep variations in perspectives, values, and practices. Thus, in this increasingly post-Christian culture, RU must be prepared to follow and practice the radical hospitality of Jesus and provide a welcoming environment even for those who do not embrace the Christian faith or believe the Christian story. It is easy for any Christian university to claim that it provides such an environment. In fact, most of them make precisely that claim. However, the proof of the claim is found in the perspectives of those to whom welcome is extended (students and the community at large,) especially those who do not fully embrace the values of the institution but are still willing to consider coming and learning there. To be credible in our claims of welcome and hospitality, the RU community must “practice what we preach” in a manner that is especially evident to those who are different from us.

To discern the best way to fully live into that sort of practice, it is requisite that we understand and respond appropriately to some key developments in the world around us. In the current environment in which social, political, and religious discourse have degenerated into name-calling and line-drawing, a rare opportunity presents itself for RU to stake out territory that is meaningfully divergent from that occupied even by other institutions that share our heritage or current circumstances.

To begin staking out that territory, it must first be recognized that terms such as diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice have come to be surrounded by a host of connotations and presumptions that have led to even the most cursory discussion about them deteriorating into conflict and divisions along rigid ideological and political lines. Because of that context, as Rochester University clarifies its identity and vision, it is vital that we place these ideas within a particular and appropriate theological, educational, and policy framework. When RU uses these terms, we specifically mean:

1. We oppose ethnic prejudices, and bias or discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. Individuals who identify with any of the diverse communities mentioned above and who enter into the RU community should be viewed and welcomed as individuals who bear the image of God, as opposed to being reduced to issues to be debated or problems to be solved.
2. We view male and female as equally reflective of the image of God, and potentially equally gifted and called by God to diverse roles and responsibilities within God’s kingdom, including leadership roles. 
3. We recognize and honor the value and significance of race and ethnicity in human identity, but strongly oppose discrimination based on race and ethnicity, and actively oppose racism in all its forms. We are devoted to racial reconciliation.
4. Since the kingdom of God encompasses individuals from all nations and tribes and transcends citizenship in any human entity, we are opposed to Christian Nationalism.
5. The socially, economically, and intellectually marginalized are the very people most welcomed, included, and embraced by Jesus and as followers of his example and teaching, RU must create and foster policies and practices that reject that marginalization, (which will be further elaborated upon below.)

 

In sum, in the spirit of the open table (which also reflects the Golden Rule and the greatest commandments,) as an institution RU will welcome, value, and embrace the diversity described above and the people who embody it, while continuing to speak and live the truth as we understand it. The Rochester University community will treat differences in perspectives and values with civility, respect, and grace. Moreover, this welcoming, loving, inclusivity will help RU to establish a credible and relevant voice to speak into a polarized and post-Christian world.

 

SCRIPTURE, THE APOCALYPTIC TRADITION, AND REACHING THE MARGINALIZED

How we do that speaking and living can also find deep roots in our Stone-Campbell/Restoration heritage. Another of the foundational principles of that faith tradition and of the Protestant Reformation which preceded it was an emphasis on “the priesthood of all believers.” This precept carries with it the idea that even though God’s people are always intended to exist and thrive in community, we all bear an individual responsibility to “work out” our relationship with God. Wedded to that idea is the belief that scripture, rightly interpreted and appropriately discerned with the guidance of the Holy Spirit would serve as the primary guide for the formation and health of that relationship and would also foster the unity of believers. The implications of these principles and their connection both to the inclusivity of the open table, and to the diversity of perspectives welcomed in a university are particularly significant for us.

An important backdrop to our consideration of this principle is a recognition that our view of scripture has itself been shaped and formed by our own religious and philosophical traditions which may differ from the traditions which shaped and formed the perspectives of others in our community. Thus, we recognize that even though “sola scriptura” is a foundational principle for many of our traditions, it is difficult in the extreme to truly formulate our guiding tenets on “scripture alone,” without the often unrecognized effects of our respective cultural biases, ecclesial traditions, hermeneutical practices, and (as a psychologist, I cannot refrain from pointing out) our individual inclinations and personality differences. An undeniable implication and practical application of what all of this suggests is that though our convictions about God and faith may be held dearly and firmly, they must also be held with humility. Further, our guiding principle must be, as some have put it, that there is one inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God, and his name is Jesus. It is to his authority and to his teachings and example that RU will unfailingly look for guidance in our pursuit of truth. 

As we seek that guidance with a mindful recognition of our heritage, it is deeply helpful to consider again the perspectives and approach promulgated by Barton W. Stone, which Richard Hughes has termed the “apocalyptic worldview.” One essential conclusion drawn from this worldview is, as Greer puts it, Stone’s conviction that “care for the poor and marginalized was an imperative.” If we truly are to grasp our heritage and be guided by the teachings and example of Jesus in the development and clarification of our institutional identity, we must clearly perceive and embrace the compellingly “upside down” nature of the kingdom he established. Jesus stood with and for the poor, the marginalized, the ostracized, (or, as one songwriter put it, “the sat upon, spat upon, ratted on.”) So, Rochester University also must strive to stand with and for those individuals. 

One key element of what that idea undeniably suggests is that a Christian university must recognize that there is a fundamental incompatibility between calling itself “Christian,” while also creating institutional admission policies, systems, and pricing that prevent anyone but the socioeconomically and/or academically elite from entering. We live in a time when many such universities specifically and intentionally are articulating these elitist strategies, as a means of heightening their academic and socioeconomic reputations, and their US News rankings. So, among other things, being a distinctive Christian university means RU must go against that grain and do all it can to keep the price of attendance as low as it feasibly can. Further, it must ensure that well-delineated avenues for admission are made available to marginalized, underserved, and underrepresented students, along with both curricular and co-curricular support systems that allow academically capable but underprepared and underprivileged or otherwise disadvantaged students to both gain access and have a realistic hope for success.

 

ROCHESTER UNIVERSITY AND KINGDOM VALUES

In conclusion, as we further clarify our distinctive identity, Rochester University must sharpen its focus on the words and example of Jesus. That focus demands that we emphasize humble and selfless service, not seeking glory or recognition for our efforts, but setting an example and teaching our students that following the call of God means carrying a cross, not accumulating possessions. That is a countercultural (even apocalyptic) message, but no Christian university can accept, endorse, or propagate the idol of materialism and the fantasy of the ultimate value of worldly success. If RU educates its students well, material success and wealth will come to some of them. As their education prepares them for successful careers and the potential for material success, RU’s mission is to help students understand the proper value to place on those things in the kingdom of God and how to be good stewards of them.

If we think carefully and communicate well, a clear sense of the core values that will guide us and how they play themselves out in our daily work in the service of the RU mission and vision will emerge. These core values are both grounded in our heritage and emergent from sound theological underpinnings. To cite some examples, our emphasis on vocation springs from our conviction that life has purpose and meaning, and our participation in God’s mission calls us to find and develop that vocation in ourselves and others, that we may all participate richly. The importance of rigorous scholarship, inspiring pedagogy, and individualized attention to students flows from a calling to excellence in the service of God and love for his children. Valuing science, the humanities, professional studies, as well as biblical and theological studies arises from our recognition that these are all gracious sources and repositories of God’s truth.

Another clear element of Stone’s “apocalyptic worldview” is the notion that the kingdom of God is both a current reality in the present and an ideal not fully realized until some unknown future. It is both now and not yet. We all live in that eschatological tension, whether we know it or not. But, there are some people, consistent with Stone’s vision, who are pushing hard to live into the values of that coming kingdom, leaning into vocations and ways of being that hasten the coming of a more fully realized kingdom, replete with the upside-down values and open table hospitality that this essay has discussed. As we move into a future filled with uncertainties but abounding with opportunities, Rochester University exists to develop, foster, and send into the world those kingdom builders. It beckons all members of the community to be one of them, as well. And ultimately, Rochester University invites “whosoever will” to come and join all of those gathered at the open table in the pursuit of truth and that kingdom mission.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowers, Beth. “Mission to Missional: Rochester University’s Story in Churches of Christ from

Otis Gatewood to Brian Stogner,” Rochester Retrospect Essay Series. Rochester Hills, MI: Rochester University, 2023.

Grafton, Thomas W. Life of Alexander Campbell. Melbourne: Australia Publishing, 1899.

Greer, David. “The Apocalyptic Tradition in Churches of Christ,” Rochester Retrospect Essay

Series. Rochester Hills, MI: Rochester University, 2023.

Heying, Heather & Weinstein, Brett. A Hunter-Gather’s Guide to the 21st Century. (New York: Portfolio Press, 2021.

Love, Mark. “No Creed But The Bible: The Story of Scripture in Churches of Christ,” Rochester

Retrospect Essay Series. Rochester Hills, MI: Rochester University, 2023.

Marrs, Rick. “Pepperdine University and the Churches of Christ: A White Paper Presented to the

Religious Standards Committee.” Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University, 2014.

Stewart, Larry. The Seasons of Rochester College. Rochester Hills, MI: Rochester College, 2008.

Walters, Naomi. “An Ecumenical Christian University: From “Christians Only” to “The Only Christians” and Beyond,” Rochester Retrospect Essay Series. Rochester Hills, MI: Rochester University, 2023.

Zahnd, Brian. Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God. New York: Waterbrook, 2017.